4.5 Article

The effects of hyperbilirubinaemia on synaptic plasticity in the dentate gyrus region of the rat hippocampus in vivo

期刊

ARCHIVES OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
卷 16, 期 1, 页码 200-204

出版社

TERMEDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE LTD
DOI: 10.5114/aoms.2019.88625

关键词

hyperbilirubinaemia; synaptic plasticity; dentate gyrus; hippocampus

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81472167]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The aim of our study is to investigate the effect of hyperbilirubinaemia on synaptic plasticity in the dentate gyrus (DG) region of the rat hippocampus. Material and methods: Seven-day-old healthy Sprague Dawley (SD) rats were randomly divided into a control group and an experiment group (n = 20 in each group). The input/ output (I/O) functions, paired-pulse reactions (PPR), excitatory postsynaptic potential (EPSP), and population spike (PS) amplitude were measured in the DG area of both groups of rats in response to stimulation applied to the lateral perforant path. Results: Compared with that in the control rats, the current-voltage curves of both EPSP slope and PS amplitude in the experimental rats were significantly depressed. The average peak facilitation was 187 +/- 16% in the control and 164 +/- 18% in the experiment group (F = 21.054, p < 0.01). The facilitation period duration of PS was 155 ms in the experimental rats, which was less than that of the controls (235 ms). In the control group, the long-term potentiation (LTP) amplitudes were 140 +/- 3.5% and 242 +/- 6%, when estimated from the EPSP slope and PS amplitude, respectively, which were significantly depressed to 124 +/- 3.4% (EPSP slope, F = 70.489, p < 0.01) and 138 +/- 8.6% (PS amplitude, F = 253.46, p < 0.01), respectively, in the experiment group. Conclusions: These findings suggest that hyperbilirubinaemia could induce impairment of synaptic plasticity in the rat DG area in vivo, including I/O function, paired-pulse ratio (PPR), and LTP, which may be closely related to cognitive impairment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据